SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ryhack who wrote (144435)8/22/2006 12:42:24 PM
From: Michael Kimmel  Respond to of 152472
 
That was my understanding of Nokia's position also.

But please. If Q couldn't claim rights to the IP in a non CDMA system, then how is it that they can in a CDMA system.

The point being, that the IP did not appear in a non CDMA system until after the CDMA advantage was proven.

Given Nokia's record of previous "good faith" negotiation, one would think/hope that courts would not provide them with the bennefit of the doubt.

Nokia knew full well that they were infringing. It's more than obvious. And if they didn't, they had better seek better
legal council than can be obtained in the bedroom.



To: ryhack who wrote (144435)8/22/2006 2:36:16 PM
From: pheilman_  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
At issue in this IP dispute is:
Did Qualcomm restrict the patents to only apply to CDMA systems? If not, (and I hope not) then using the technique that Qualcomm taught for improving performance of GSM-only phones was unlicensed.

This is the huge value of real patents, since there is an original idea encoded in the patent the claims don't need to be very restrictive.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News